Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subarea Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orland Park trustees, planners kick off detailed sub‑area study, flag preservation, traffic and vacancy concerns
Summary
Consultants and trustees launched a 12–14 month sub‑area planning process for four focus areas in Orland Park, with trustees prioritizing property facelifts and preservation tradeoffs in Old Orland, a cohesive welcome look for the LaGrange gateway, and questions about vacancy and zoning on Harlem Avenue and the I‑80 corridor.
Consultants and Orland Park trustees opened a community workshop to begin detailed sub‑area planning for four parts of the village — Old Orland, the Gateway to LaGrange, the Harlem Avenue corridor and the I‑80 employment corridor — with trustees identifying preservation, traffic and vacancy as the top near‑term issues.
“My name is Josh Kuntz. I’m with House Levine,” planning consultant Josh Kuntz told the board, outlining a seven‑step, roughly 12– to 14‑month scope that will produce targeted recommendations on land use, transportation, streetscape and economic strategies for each sub area. He said the work will include market and fiscal analysis and both online and in‑person outreach tools, including a project website and a spatial feedback tool (map.social).
Why it matters: Trustees said the sub‑area plans should translate the village’s broader comprehensive plan into actionable, place‑specific policies that can guide capital spending, façade programs and zoning decisions. Several trustees said those steps are needed to prevent ad‑hoc redevelopment and to make sure public investment supports a cohesive identity across adjoining districts.
In the Old Orland Historic District, board members raised a cluster of interrelated concerns: visible property neglect, aging infrastructure, limited parking and a persistent choice between preserving historic character and allowing denser, newer development. “I think some of the properties in Old Orland that are unkept, especially 144th and Union and a couple on Beacon Avenue,” Trustee Katzenas said, arguing for targeted façade and maintenance attention.
Trustees emphasized parking and traffic as practical constraints to any revitalization there, noting neighborhood streets are used as cut‑throughs to avoid nearby arterials. The board asked consultants to help determine which historic structures are worth formal preservation and which sites might be appropriate for sensitive redevelopment.
At the LaGrange gateway, members prioritized a cohesive “welcome/home” streetscape and better tie‑ins to the developing downtown entertainment district. Concerns included the cost to maintain any upgraded streetscape, visibility problems caused by grade changes at some intersections, and traffic volume and speed that discourage visitors from stopping. “How are we greeting people coming home to Orland Park…with a cohesive look and feel?” the chair asked during the discussion.
Discussion of Harlem Avenue centered on a long‑running vacancy problem and mixed land uses. Trustees debated whether to emphasize retail on the west side and manufacturing or industrial employment on the east side, or to pursue mixed‑use redevelopment. Several trustees noted two large parcels that have remained empty for decades and urged staff to reach out to property owners. They also highlighted a jurisdictional complication: parts of the corridor fall in adjacent townships with different tax and incentive structures, which affects development patterns.
On the I‑80 employment corridor, trustees questioned whether the earlier ambition for a corporate campus remains realistic and discussed alternatives — from signature destination development at the LaGrange/I‑80 corner to lifestyle or recreational amenities — while noting constraints such as topography, railroad access and overlapping county jurisdictions.
Board next steps: Consultants asked trustees to complete a quick worksheet ranking the single top issue for each subarea; results showed a spread of priorities rather than a single consensus. The consultant team will produce an existing conditions analysis, a business and housing market memo, and continue public outreach including a business‑community workshop and a public open house. A project website and map.social tool were announced for ongoing input.
The meeting concluded without formal land‑use decisions. Trustee Katzenas moved to adjourn; the board voted unanimously to end the workshop.
Provenance: The account above is drawn directly from remarks made during the consultant presentation and the trustees’ workshop discussion, including consultant Josh Kuntz and multiple trustees who identified issues and voted on priorities.
